This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tieck, R. M. Articles by Carman, G. P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Alternate Evaluation Criteria of Piezoelectric Motors

University of California Los Angeles, Active Materials Laboratory, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA

Michael C. Emmons

University of California Los Angeles, Active Materials Laboratory, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA

Gregory P. Carman

University of California Los Angeles, Active Materials Laboratory, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA, carman{at}seas.ucla.edu

In this article, four types of piezoelectrically driven motors are evaluated: linear, horn-type, unidirectional rotary, and bidirectional traveling wave. Experimental results for velocity, power, and specific power are presented as a function of mechanical load. Analytical and experimental energy densities are compared based upon applied electrical potential. The bidirectional ultrasonic motor exhibited 34% of its available energy density, while the other motors produced values ranging from 0.63 to 9.5% of their respective available energies. The piezoelectric material specific power values ranged from 4500 W/kg for the bidirectional motor to 6.53 W/kg for the linear piezo motor. Results suggest that comparing piezoelectric motors based on individual mechanical parameters does not accurately describe motor design and drive train energy transmission.

Key Words: piezoelectric motor • characterization • power • specific power • energy density.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?